The Prisoner's Dilemma and Social Contract Theory on a racquetball court

Every day, dozens of opportunities to benefit at the misfortune of others avail themselves to us, and so everyone now and again considers the question, "Hey, why the hell not?"

Indeed, why should an individual be moral; why should we not accept that this world is ours for the taking and anyone who gets in our way is simply a casualty of that situation? Why does the prohibition on taking advantage of others exist? Each of these questions asks basically the same question: why should I be moral; that is, what's in it for me?

An example would do nicely, but first, some background: In the game of racquetball, a rally begins with one player, X, serving to the front wall, and the receiver, Y, returning the ball to the front wall. Player X then hits the ball back to the front wall, as does Y, and so on until one of the players is unable to return the ball. When the players first line up for the serve, Player X is required to serve from the service box, a small area near the middle of the court, with his or her back to Player Y, who remains in back court to receive the ball.

But why do this in the first place? The answer is quite simple: racquetball is played on a small, enclosed court and balls can travel in excess of 100 miles per hour in professional tournaments. With that in mind, it is easy to see that a player cannot afford to be "ball shy." Once hit, most racquetball players will play more cautiously, giving their opponents more room to play (making sure to be out of the way each time he or she hits the ball!). This has the same chilling effect as when a batter is hit by a pitch in baseball, which usually results in the batter backing off the plate and giving more room for the pitcher to use (which is just what the pitcher wanted in the first place).

By bringing Player X's game down a notch, Player Y benefits immensely and seemingly does not incur any negative consequences.

Despite this fact, to take advantage of rules that allow players to unintentionally hit one another and intentionally strike an unsuspecting person in a non-contact sport is clearly immoral. Aside from the temporary pain it would cause him or her, there is also the danger that such an action could severely injure Player X, depending on where and how hard the ball is hit. Clearly, the desire to win a game is insufficientethicaljustification for causing suffering on the part of another human being.

There exists a Prisoner's Dilemma-esque a flaw in this logic, however. For if Player Y hits Player X and gets away with it, others will probably take notice and start doing the same (as they have done in real life). In fact, Player X might just turn around and hit Player Y the next time it is Player Y's turn to serve. If not, there are still many other racquetball players in the world who just learned a really cool way to psyche out their opponent and eventually someone will end up using the same trick against Player Y.

In this case, I would point to a rather utilitarian view of Social Contract Theory. Why should we be moral? Why should Person Y not gain an advantage over Person X by whacking him or her over the head with the ball? Because, simply put, Person Y does not want to live in a society where s/he is constantly getting hit in the back of the head with racquetballs. (Understandable.)

To hit Player X is to take the first step towards a time in which it is acceptable for anyone to hit one's opponent in that way, thus creating a sport in which everyone is constantly looking over their shoulders and wondering when the ubiquitous intentional strike is coming. Unless new rules are introduced, the game will eventually become less fun (and more painful) for everyone, including Player Y. So in the end, it is in Player Y's best interest to simply return the ball to the front wall and try to win the match on his or her merit, rather than with the assistance of dirty tricks.